| Revision as of 13:21, 31 July 2013 edit124.102.88.8 (talk) Undid revision 566491749 by 182.249.241.22 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:12, 31 July 2013 edit undoBagworm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,097 edits →Edit warring by 182.249.241.*Next edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :::The website in question published fringe materials and questionable articles by pseudo-scholars like Jeffrey Woodward. They are not inherently reliable and they clearly weren't good on fact checking. Regardless of how revered the scholar in question is -- in ten years of Japanese studies I never heard of him before this -- it is clear that the article would have been published regardless of whether it contained errors. Thus it is effectively self-published. Therefore, this website should not be cited except possibly for the '''opinions''' of scholars who '''meet GNG'''. This is a factual statement for which ample, much better sources can and have been cited. The only reason you could want to cite it here is to advertise a defunct online American poetry mag or to continue your obvious gravedancing campaign against Hijiri88. (The latter kind of behaviour might land you at ANI sooner or later, if you keep it up.) Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument ''clearly'' doesn't apply. | :::The website in question published fringe materials and questionable articles by pseudo-scholars like Jeffrey Woodward. They are not inherently reliable and they clearly weren't good on fact checking. Regardless of how revered the scholar in question is -- in ten years of Japanese studies I never heard of him before this -- it is clear that the article would have been published regardless of whether it contained errors. Thus it is effectively self-published. Therefore, this website should not be cited except possibly for the '''opinions''' of scholars who '''meet GNG'''. This is a factual statement for which ample, much better sources can and have been cited. The only reason you could want to cite it here is to advertise a defunct online American poetry mag or to continue your obvious gravedancing campaign against Hijiri88. (The latter kind of behaviour might land you at ANI sooner or later, if you keep it up.) Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument ''clearly'' doesn't apply. | ||
| :::] (]) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | :::] (]) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::IP182, You've already been requested to stay on topic, and to calm down. Furthermore, do not edit another user's talk posts, as you have repeatedly done and . Your histrionics impress no-one but yourself - please read ] and comply. --] (]) 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:12, 31 July 2013
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
I have begun creating a new article here at the original location. For the record, roughly two months ago I proposed splitting the Tanka article into classical waka and modern tanka, since it is anachronistic for the word tanka to refer to any poems between the 10th century and the 19th century, or to cover chōka, etc. Introducing an article on classical waka brings us more into line with Japanese and other language versions of Misplaced Pages and keeps terminology consistent, and I got no opposition to the move. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
'Stanzaic form'?
Is it correct to include Waka in the category Stanzaic form (as has just been done with this edit)? A stanza is a unit within a larger poem, so it's surely wrong to include haiku (which I'm about to remove), but what about the longer forms of waka - did they consist of multiple "stanzas", thus justifying the inclusion of this article in the category? It's also worth noting that waka is not a form, but a genre including multiple forms - perhaps another contra-indicator for its inclusion in that category. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
How many ku in a tanka?
At the end of the opening section we currently read, "Tanka (hereafter referred to as waka) consist of five lines (句, ku, literally "phrases") of 5-7-5-7-7 on or syllabic units." Usually, when we come across reference to 'ku' in the context of tanka, we read something along the lines of: "the first three measures were traditionally called the kami-no-ku (upper measure) and the last two, the shimo-no-ku (lower measure)." (From Shirane's Traditional Japanese Literature: An Anthology, Beginnings to 1600, p90). Similarly, we read that a kasen consists of 36 ku. Should we really be speaking of "ku the Greater" and "ku the Lesser", where one type of ku can consist of 2 or 3 of the other type of ku? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're still active on Misplaced Pages, but I didn't notice this query until now. Basically it seems to me that "ku the Greater" and "ku the Lesser" are mis-translations of "kami-no-ku" (upper phrase or upper phrases) and "shimo-no-ku" (lower phrase or lower phrases) respectively. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to use either "ku" or "phrase" or "measure" to mean either the individual "ku" of 5/7 morae, or either one of the "kami-no-ku" or "shimo-no-ku". For an unambiguous us of "ku" to mean only one of the phrases, try "shoku" (初句). elvenscout742 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
envoi
I haven't got around to explicitly listing my sources (checking page numbers for material I read months ago is difficult), but my source for the use of the word "envoy" as a translation for hanka is Keene 1999. He doesn't say envoi but "envoy", and it seems more appropriate to use the exact translation given in reliable sources, rather than a French cognate without a source. I don't know enough about European poetry to propose a move for the envoi article to envoy (poetry) in accordance with WP:UE (in discussion of European poetry it may be overwhelmingly more common than the English word). But an article on Japanese literature should use English-language sources. (Sorry if I sound somewhat pompous. I am just having flashbacks to the Southern Court.（笑）) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The two terms are synonymous in English, i.e. envoi is not a French cognate (though it undoubtedly started life as one) but an English word (cf. this) so we'd need to establish which word is more commonly used before moving over the redirect. The fact that envoi is more distinct is probably worth considering too, but I have no strong feelings either way. My edit here was only concerned with linking to an existing article rather than to a redlink (I only set up the redirect envoy (poetry) subsequently). --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Waka which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring by 182.249.241.*
The above IP has removed a reference from the article three times this month. The citation in question is to an article on waka by a respected japanologist, Professor Harold Wright. While it may be argued that a single reference to the assertion is adequate, there is nothing to be gained by removing a second one.
The IP has consistently been using edit summaries inappropriately, and I have drawn their attention to WP:REVTALK, which states:
"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."
I have no interest in edit-warring, but this IP's purely negative editing pattern is disruptive. He appears to wish to draw in some debate about sockpuppets, which is entirely irrelevant to this article. Pot/kettle, not interested (except to point out that "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" also counts as puppetry). --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are the one who is defying consensus here. At Talk:Haiku both Konjakupoet and Icuc2 agreed that online poetry magazines should not be used qhen better sources are available, and in this case we have such a source already. Also, basic statements of fact that couldn't possibly be controversial probably don't even need ONE source.
- Additionally, please see the links in my email to you, or my earlier edit summary, for the reason I am unable to log in. Stop trolling and making real-world threats /threats to out me. Thatc's a good way to get your ass indefinitely blocked.
- Cheers!
- BTW, stop defending JoshuSasori's sockpuppets' right to undo all my edits and evade his own block. The last user who tried that earned himself a block, and your pattern of harassment/grave-dancing is beginning to remind me a lot of him... 182.249.241.35 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- And pointing out that obvious socks of banned users don't have a right to edit articles is not a "personal attack". Your accusing me of claiming an"opinion" as a fact, however, would be a violation of WP:AGF, if I hadn't already emailed you with a detailed explanation and pointed you to the community/admin consensus in my edit summaries. In that light, it's not merely a failure to assume good faith, but a borderline personal attack. 182.249.241.33 (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic. Nobody here is interested in the dramatics of your pot-kettle interaction with some other user; it is of no interest, and is not relevant to the matter under discussion. Who someone reminds you of is of zero importance, so please stop filling this page with waffle. No-one has made any threats or attacks against you here, so please just wp:calm down.
- Back to the topic: There is no WP consensus that online sources are less reliable than printed ones; neither did Icuc2 make that assertion at Talk:Haiku as you claim. What he did assert was that the journal in question was a highly-respected refereed publication during the many years of its existence. It regularly included articles by respected academics (such as the one cited here), so to disparagingly call it an "online poetry magazine" is inaccurate. There is thus no basis for your persistent wp:edit warring. Please desist. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. 122, 123, 124 do not "remind me" of JS. They ARE JS's sockpuppets. I on the other hand am perfectly entitled to edit Misplaced Pages anonymously. Please stop making personal attacks against me like your entire first paragraph above.
- The website in question published fringe materials and questionable articles by pseudo-scholars like Jeffrey Woodward. They are not inherently reliable and they clearly weren't good on fact checking. Regardless of how revered the scholar in question is -- in ten years of Japanese studies I never heard of him before this -- it is clear that the article would have been published regardless of whether it contained errors. Thus it is effectively self-published. Therefore, this website should not be cited except possibly for the opinions of scholars who meet GNG. This is a factual statement for which ample, much better sources can and have been cited. The only reason you could want to cite it here is to advertise a defunct online American poetry mag or to continue your obvious gravedancing campaign against Hijiri88. (The latter kind of behaviour might land you at ANI sooner or later, if you keep it up.) Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument clearly doesn't apply.
- Jubei the samurai (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- IP182, You've already been requested to stay on topic, and to calm down. Furthermore, do not edit another user's talk posts, as you have repeatedly done here and here. Your histrionics impress no-one but yourself - please read Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and comply. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)